Abstract

The honesty and integrity of scientists is widely believed to be threatened by pressures to publish, unsupportive research environments, and other structural, sociological and psychological factors. Belief in the importance of these factors has inspired major policy initiatives, but evidence to support them is either non-existent or derived from self-reports and other sources that have known limitations. We used a retrospective study design to verify whether risk factors for scientific misconduct could predict the occurrence of retractions, which are usually the consequence of research misconduct, or corrections, which are honest rectifications of minor mistakes. Bibliographic and personal information were collected on all co-authors of papers that have been retracted or corrected in 2010-2011 (N=611 and N=2226 papers, respectively) and authors of control papers matched by journal and issue (N=1181 and N=4285 papers, respectively), and were analysed with conditional logistic regression. Results, which avoided several limitations of past studies and are robust to different sampling strategies, support the notion that scientific misconduct is more likely in countries that lack research integrity policies, in countries where individual publication performance is rewarded with cash, in cultures and situations were mutual criticism is hampered, and in the earliest phases of a researcher's career. The hypothesis that males might be prone to scientific misconduct was not supported, and the widespread belief that pressures to publish are a major driver of misconduct was largely contradicted: high-impact and productive researchers, and those working in countries in which pressures to publish are believed to be higher, are less-likely to produce retracted papers, and more likely to correct them. Efforts to reduce and prevent misconduct, therefore, might be most effective if focused on promoting research integrity policies, improving mentoring and training, and encouraging transparent communication amongst researchers.

Conditional logistic regression estimates of the association between country of author and likelihood to publish a paper that was later retracted or corrected. Effects are estimated by comparison with matched–control papers. Numbers in parentheses indicate the total number of papers from the specified country that are in the sample, respectively, of corrections and retractions. Each panel represents the results of two multivariable analyses, in which samples for correction and for retraction were analysed using identical models. The indicator reference category was USA (N: 1979 – 449) for panel A, and a generic “other countries” category in all other panels. The “other” category in panel A includes all countries with ≤90 data points in the sample. See and for further details.

Retraction and correction likelihood, by team and individual characteristics.

Conditional logistic regression estimates of the association between author or team characteristics and likelihood to publish a paper that was later retracted or corrected. Effects are estimated by comparison with matched-control papers. Corrections and retractions were analysed separately using identical univariable analyses, testing each parameter in turn. The gender was analysed in a multivariable model, in which “male” was the reference category. All predictors except gender were log-transformed. Parameters are grouped by the general risk factor of which they are proxies. For further details, see and .

Number of retractions per author, by team and individual characteristics.

Total number of retracted papers attributed, in the WOS, to authors included in this study (y axis), plotted against various individual performance parameters (x-axis). All predictor parameters were log-transformed. Authors with no retractions were omitted. For further details, see and .

Total number of retracted papers attributed, in the WOS, to authors included in this study, by country of activity (top) and by policy characteristics of those countries (bottom). For further details, see and .